Justices may decide if vendors can sn...

Justices may decide if vendors can snub gay weddings

There are 2814 comments on the Daily Press & Argus story from Mar 20, 2014, titled Justices may decide if vendors can snub gay weddings. In it, Daily Press & Argus reports that:

When Vanessa Willock wanted an Albuquerque photographer to shoot her same-sex commitment ceremony in 2006, she contacted Elane Photography.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Daily Press & Argus.

Dan

Omaha, NE

#425 Mar 25, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
It wasn't a red herring, it was just a relevant example. If we had been talking about the florist at that moment instead of the baker, I wouldn't have referenced eating.
However, consumers consume. That's why we call them "consumers". Whether they actually EAT the product is immaterial. They take the product for their use, their "consumption".
<quoted text>
Can you show where that is actually the objection stated? Because again, as I looked over the article, it was pretty blatant in stating that...
"Their argument is that professionals whose work is by nature expressive - such as writers, advertisers and website designers - should not have to apply their artistic talents to subjects on which they disagree."
Now, this could just be the journalist putting their own spin on the wording.
<quoted text>
And can be broken with REASONABLE exceptions. No one is trying to enslave these merchants, we are only expecting them to do the job which they advertise.
<quoted text>
Well, I'm no lawyer, and I don't know about that. Sounds implausible. I wouldn't want any business owner lording over me about what I may do with the products I buy.
I'd leave it to the wedding cake outfit to decide which edding sthey want to contract their services for,

There's only two kinds.

If someone wants to only do straight weddings, then they leave the money on the table for someone else to pick up.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#426 Mar 25, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Hm, well, "gay" is the word of the day, and it makes for an easy example, doesn't it? But there are other examples. Suppose this were an interracial marriage? Or just blacks? Or Jews? Or Latinos? Some people aren't enamored with THOSE ideas, either. How "crappy" of a business practice would this be in Leith, NC, or Rachel, NV? There are places where such discriminatory businesses would be REWARDED by their community, without anti-discrimination laws.
Well, there';s not religious defense for all the examples you just ran out.

And, assuredly, interracial couples, blacks, Latinos, Jews etc. are getting married and aren't suing anyone. that I've heard.

So, am I to assume that gay couples are less emotionally resilient from this post and can't/won't take "no" for an answer, or what?

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#427 Mar 25, 2014
It is a fallacy to claim a right to the services of others, you have a right to your life and to keep it, you do not have a right to get something from government because government has nothing, it has to get it from someone.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#428 Mar 25, 2014


For Comrade Sheepie, another answer.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#429 Mar 25, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
It is a fallacy to claim a right to the services of others, you have a right to your life and to keep it, you do not have a right to get something from government because government has nothing, it has to get it from someone.
Agreed that I don't believe you can demand the services of others.
Fundies R Mentally Nil

Philadelphia, PA

#430 Mar 25, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
It could be a woman. Any protected class who'd earmark a specific service for a specific function that could be held to be objectionable by the service provider.
A woman buying donuts for a Westboro Aptist Church funeral protest.
I man, people ask for Hitler cakes, so it's not like I'm coming from outer space on this.
You're coming from farther out than outer space, you stupid garbage.

People who ask for Hitler cakes are not a protected class. Businesses may bar service for individuated reasons...but not on the basis of some protected, group trait.

You purposefully refuse to acknowledge this simple point, explained to your sub human, half mind many times.
Fundies R Mentally Nil

Philadelphia, PA

#431 Mar 25, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed that I don't believe you can demand the services of others.
No matter which way this case goes businesses still will not be able to refuse service on the basis of race, gender, religious belief, disability, etc.

So what "you believe" in the current context doesn't matter. Business may not and will not be able to discriminate on the basis of these protected traits.

This case is about "religious," i.e., hypocritical, beliefs regarding glbt people only. For that group - gay people - you want society to have a lesser standard of protection. That's all your arguing. You're not arguing a general, consistently applied principle.

“A long time ago”

Since: Nov 09

in a galaxy far, far away....

#432 Mar 25, 2014
Dan wrote:
I'd leave it to the wedding cake outfit to decide which edding sthey want to contract their services for,
There's only two kinds.
No, there's only one kind. Either they serve weddings, or they don't.
Dan wrote:
Well, there';s not religious defense for all the examples you just ran out.
Hm, maybe not in YOUR religion, but when I hear the phrase "religious defense", I have no idea where that ends. If we're talking about the ephemeral, personally-customizable subject of "belief", I see no limits. Any oddball, anti-social tendency can be supported as "religious". There's no way to tell someone that their religious beliefs are invalid.

But, if we are to attempt to hold people to the specific tenets of the greater religion that they've adopted, rather than allowing them to self-define the tenets that are important to them personally, there is still no component of Christianity which says that Christians are doing their religion wrong if they don't turn certain people away from places of business. If their "religious defense" is to be defensible, then they need to find the passage which says they must treat people like that.
Dan wrote:
And, assuredly, interracial couples, blacks, Latinos, Jews etc. are getting married and aren't suing anyone. that I've heard.
I'm pretty sure such discrimination is already illegal. Gay couples, however, are still fair game in many places.
Dan wrote:
So, am I to assume that gay couples are less emotionally resilient from this post and can't/won't take "no" for an answer, or what?
I think you should assume that the LAW will take not take "no" for an answer, which it shouldn't, if it is to be binding. You should assume that gay people are more accustomed to constant discrimination, and we've already seen the results of standing down compliantly. Blacks, Latinos, Jews etc have already gone down that road long ago.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#433 Mar 25, 2014
Fundies R Mentally Nil wrote:
<quoted text>
You're coming from farther out than outer space, you stupid garbage.
People who ask for Hitler cakes are not a protected class. Businesses may bar service for individuated reasons...but not on the basis of some protected, group trait.
You purposefully refuse to acknowledge this simple point, explained to your sub human, half mind many times.
Gay people who ask for cakes are a protected class.

Try to keep up.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#434 Mar 25, 2014
It's the right not to be ambushed by people who are supposed to be at your service with their choice of bigotries. They have a right to be a bigot, but they don't have a right to make their bigotry your problem in the public square. The law really shouldn't have to spell this out for people, it should be just a given that we all are equal, but some just refuse to catch on. Don't like groups in the public, don't open your doors to the public, if you do, keep your bigotries to yourself.
Fundies R Mentally Nil

Philadelphia, PA

#435 Mar 25, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Gay people who ask for cakes are a protected class.
Try to keep up.
You can't be that stupid, even as a troll. It's not permitted. Maybe you left out a "not," in which case you would incorrect factually; maybe you typed what you meant, in which case you should be in an institution for lifelong care.

Sexual orientation _is_ a protected trait in that locale and in many contexts. That was my point. Sexual orientation is not, therefore, a cause a business may use to refuse service.

It's not individuated in the way refusing to make a Hitler cake is. That would not be a protected trait, nor even trait.

But thanks for linking Nazis and same sex couples. I know how that works: We are all sinners - thieves, murderers, fundamentalist christians, adulterers, addicts.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#436 Mar 25, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Jeff-
I don't think that it's illegal (yet) to object to ANY behavior, same sex or not, is it?
The discrimination laws aren't based upon behavior, they're based upon someone being gay-the term is "sexual orientation", yes?
I don't know, Dan. It seems like you're saying that, unless gays act like heterosexuals, they are subject to disparate treatment. If a gay man marries a woman, then the baker can't discriminate. But if a gay man marries another man, people can refuse to do business with them. From where I sit, that takes all the meaning out of non-discrimination statutes.
BS Detector

Sherman Oaks, CA

#437 Mar 25, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Because being a bum isn't a protected class.
The same baker can refuse a same-sex wedding if his niece or neighbor is marrying a bum as well.
And yet before you claimed
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, EVERYONE is a member of a protected class.

EVERYONE.
Interesting. If everyone is a member of a "protected class" then there really is no such thing as a protected class at all.
Fundies R Mentally Nil

Philadelphia, PA

#438 Mar 25, 2014
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting. If everyone is a member of a "protected class" then there really is no such thing as a protected class at all.
You're a bs'ing moron. You know perfectly well he meant the protected class is "race," not "blacks," and "sexual orientation," not "gays."

TomInElPaso

“Impeach the reality show actor”

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#439 Mar 25, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
That is logically consistent. Although from past experience Comrade Sheepie will not be able to understand it.
The troll has to get his unread comments in.

Let the spam posts begin.
Fundies R Mentally Nil

Philadelphia, PA

#440 Mar 25, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, there';s not religious defense for all the examples you just ran out.
And, assuredly, interracial couples, blacks, Latinos, Jews etc. are getting married and aren't suing anyone. that I've heard.
So, am I to assume that gay couples are less emotionally resilient from this post and can't/won't take "no" for an answer, or what?
No cretin, you're the one arguing (without understanding what you're saying) that businesses should be able to discriminate on any basis, against any customer.

So it shouldn't matter to you if there's some "religious" claim being made, well, by your own drunken, trolling blather.

Even so, who are you to say that my sincerely held, "religious" beliefs don't preclude my business from serving christians or whites or heterosexuals or whatever?
Tymoshenkos Friend

Blandford, MA

#441 Mar 26, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Just like all catholics follow the church's teaching about birth control, eh?
Does that make it right, stinky?
Dan

Omaha, NE

#442 Mar 26, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know, Dan. It seems like you're saying that, unless gays act like heterosexuals, they are subject to disparate treatment. If a gay man marries a woman, then the baker can't discriminate. But if a gay man marries another man, people can refuse to do business with them. From where I sit, that takes all the meaning out of non-discrimination statutes.
Not saying that-

I guess I'm saying that "acting like homosexuals" doesn't make that act domething that it's illegal to disapprove of.

Again, I am not bound by law to approve of things people do. I AM biound by law not to discriminate against a person in a protectec class, but if they get married, that's something they do, not who they are.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#443 Mar 26, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know, Dan. It seems like you're saying that, unless gays act like heterosexuals, they are subject to disparate treatment. If a gay man marries a woman, then the baker can't discriminate. But if a gay man marries another man, people can refuse to do business with them. From where I sit, that takes all the meaning out of non-discrimination statutes.
A gay man or woman are people, they are protected.
A wedding is an act, acts are not protected.
Providing a cake for a gay wedding is a form of participation in that act.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

The gay men involved were customers and were never denied service because they were gay. The baker doesn't want to be a participant in their wedding.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#444 Mar 26, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
A gay man or woman are people, they are protected.
A wedding is an act, acts are not protected.
Providing a cake for a gay wedding is a form of participation in that act.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
The gay men involved were customers and were never denied service because they were gay. The baker doesn't want to be a participant in their wedding.
So if the town's best baker of wedding cakes believes, because of his religion, that interracial couples shouldn't be married (yes, there are still people who use religion to justify this) the baker should be able to discriminate based on race?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News All bets are off at the Supreme Court 2 min Hudson 43
News a CDC ban on 'fetus' and 'transgender?' Experts... 56 min RustyS 6
News Masturbation, sharing beds lead to homosexualit... 1 hr Elizabeth1912 8
News Former OKC Mayor blames homosexuality for moral... 1 hr Kirk is OK 148
News Ten Commandments judge faces runoff in Alabama ... 1 hr spud 367
News Same-sex parents navigate ups and downs of maki... 1 hr Wondering 6
News Gay couple, devout baker take cake fight to hig... 1 hr Wondering 101
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 9 hr Frindly 15,006
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) Fri GodSmacked 26,930
More from around the web